Amendment 0001 TA.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Past Performance

2. Price

3. Technical Acceptability

Technical Acceptability will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive selection in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability: Initially, the government evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

B. Price Evaluation: Next, all Technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on each offeror based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving transient aircraft ground services and corrosion control that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Confidence assessment ratings are defined as follows:

Substantial Confidence – Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence – Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence – Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence – Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence – No performance record is identifiable or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

D In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

E. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government, and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

F. In the event that the government does not make an award pursuant to paragraph E above, the government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if that offeror is judged to have a performance assessment rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

H. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of clause)

(End of Summary of Changes)